BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 90 of 2014.
Date of Institution : 09.07.2014.
Date of Decision : 12.1.2017.
Gurdeep Singh son of Shri Kartar Singh, resident of Preet Nagar, Gali No.7, Begu Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Shakti Motors Pvt. Ltd., Dabwali Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa through its proprietor/ Manager.
3. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd, Plot No.1, Phase IIIA, IMT Manesar, Gurgaon (Haryana), through its Manager.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL………..……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. S.L. Sachdeva, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. S.K. Puri, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. K.R. Jindal, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief, is that he had purchased a new Maruti SX4 UDI Car bearing chassis No. MA3FFEB1S00192573, engine No.D13A-1659585 from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.7,92,103/- vide invoice No. VSL11000454 dated 25.7.2011 with warranty of one year. The complainant further got extended the warranty up to 24.7.2013 by making payment of additional amount to ops. The complainant got registered the Car with Registering Authority, Sirsa vide registration No.HR-24P/1525. It is further averred that from the very beginning, there was problem in the gear system of the car as the gears could not be applied properly and smoothly. The complainant reported the same to op no.1 whereupon op no.1 got conducted repairs on the said car but even then said problem could not be removed. The record of such repairs and services conducted by op no.1 is with op no.1 and op no.1 did not supply the copies to the complainant despite repeated requests and demands. The said defect is still continuing in the car and it is quite clear that car has manufacturing defect which cannot be removed by way of repairs/services. As such, the said car is liable to be replaced with a new one. The complainant has approached opposite party no.1 time and again and requested for replacement of above car with a new one or to refund its price but op no.1 did not pay any heed to the same and has refused to do so finally a week back. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Op no.1 in its written statement took several preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; suppression of material facts; that complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties as complainant has not impleaded the workshop manager. It has been further submitted that as per the terms and conditions of manufacturing company some free services are provided to the purchasers and at the time of delivery of the vehicle a pre-delivery inspection is essential to be done and after pre-delivery inspection vehicle can only be handed over to the customer. In this case PDI was done. It is an ethic based activity of the dealer so that even minor problem may not be faced by the consumer. The complainant enjoyed the first free service vide job card dated 12.8.2011 at that time the mileage in the meter panel of the vehicle was 1009. In the course of this service oil and oil filter were changed and the car was washed and cleaned. Then the complainant visited for the second time and in this connection job card was prepared on 22.8.2011 and the meter panel was showing reading as 2735. Unfortunately the car was demanding body repair. Front bumper of the car was also damaged. The complainant himself managed old front bumper of the car and the same was installed and affixed by the engineer of the op. Thereafter, at the mileage of 5244 vide job chard dated 11.10.2011, the complainant enjoyed the benefit of second free service. On that date even the condition of the car was found very worst and it was appearing that the car has been used in very rough manner or by an incompetent driver, as such wheel balancing of all the four wheels and also wheel alignment was required and the same was done in the third service. Further the complainant visited the workshop of the company and a job card was prepared on 9.4.2012 due to drastic use of the vehicle again body repair was required and the same was done. Thereafter, customer enjoyed the paid service at the mileage (reading) of 19608 vide job card dated 16.6.2012 and even on that date the wheels of the vehicle were required to be balanced and the wheel alignment was also required, under body coating was also needed and this was done as paid service. Thereafter, vide job card dated 11.3.2013 and at the mileage of 31509 the complainant further got conducted service from workshop and job card was prepared. On this date, demanded repair was change of oil engine, oil filter, air filter and vehicle was showing some problem in shifting of 1st and 2nd gear. In the course of the inspection conducted by mechanic Karan Kumar, he found that air filter is totally chocked with dust and due to this vehicle was not getting proper speed at the relevant time as is specified by the company and the oil also caught thickness and same was done and this was also a paid service. In the course of the repair, brake fluid was also found short and other required repairs were done. In another service vide job card dated 6.4.2013, it was found by the concerned mechanic that horn was not working and accordingly horn accessory high pitched was used. Then the complainant visited for running repair at the mileage of 42848 vide job card dated 10.6.2013 and on that date there was light leakage of engine oil. It was a paid service as per the terms and conditions of the warrantee and guarantee card but complainant hectically insisted to do the job without any charges. He was advised that seal is required to be replaced. Similarly job card was prepared on 14.3.2014 and on 29.5.2014 but on these two occasions as well the complainant pressurized the workshop authorities to provide the facility under the warrantee and guarantee which was not possible at all because all the free services were already availed by the customer and the car was misused from all corners. Moreover, it was not properly handled while it was driven at any time by anybody. Any trouble and problem ever existed in the vehicle concerned when the vehicle was in possession of complainant and due to improper use and improper plying of the vehicle.
3. Opposite party no.2 in its separate written statement has averred that complainant has concealed the material facts with ulterior motives to obtain undue gain. The answering op being the manufacturer gives warranty for a period of two years or 40,000 kms whoever event occurs first. The owner of vehicle can obtain the extended warranty on paid basis for further period of one/two years or 60,000/80,000 Kms whichever event occurs first. The complainant has concealed the mileage factor intentionally to obtain undue gain. It has been further submitted that neither the complainant reported the alleged problem nor was observed by works manager at the time of first, second and three free services as availed by complainant. The vehicle in question was also brought to the workshop of op no.1 for accidental repairs on two occasions on 22.8.2011 and 9.4.2012 and even that time the customer never reported the alleged problem. The complainant brought the vehicle for routine maintenance service of 30,000 Kms on 11.3.2013 at a mileage of 31509 Kms and demanded 1st and IInd gear check. The service engineer inspected the vehicle and replaced ring assembly, low gear sync and circlip free of cost under warranty as per the terms and conditions. The complainant did not report the alleged problem at the time of next services at a mileage of 33281 Kms on 6.4.2013 and further at a mileage of 42848 Kms. on 10.6.2013. The op duly discharged their warranty obligations as per the terms and conditions. The complainant was negligent in proper maintenance of vehicle as per schedule. The vehicle in question had completed 70,411 kms as on 29.8.2014 but the complainant has skipped the routine maintenance services due on completion of 40000, 50000, 60000 and 70000 Kms. which were very essential for efficient performance of vehicle and its vital components like gear system. The complainant refused to get certain parts replaced on paid service as the same were not covered under warranty. It is denied that complainant was not given the service records. The job slip and job cards detail invoice are being made by the workshop before starting and on completion of jobs respectively in duplicate in the ordinary course of business. The complainant was given a customers’ copy of said documents.
4. By way of evidence, complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.PW1/A. Thereafter, ld. counsel for complainant sought various opportunities for remaining evidence of complainant but did not produce any evidence despite last opportunity and therefore, evidence was closed by order. Op no.2 tendered affidavit Ex.R1, copy of dealership agreement Ex.R2 and copy of warranty policy Ex.R3. OP no.1 tendered affidavit Ex.R4 and copies of vehicle history Ex.R5 to Ex.R11.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. From the copies of job cards Ex.R5 to Ex.R7, it is evident that opposite parties have provided free services as per the terms and conditions of the warranty. Up to running of 31509 Kms. there was no problem of gear system in the car and on 11.3.2013, the complainant reported that gear not shifting, 1st and IInd gear check and at that time ring assembly, low gear sync and circlip were replaced free of costs being in warranty period and costs of Rs.3000/- for that replacement was borne by the opposite parties as is evident from job card Ex.R9. Then on the mileage of 57876, the complainant raised problem that gear shift lever hard and at that time it was recommended that 1st and 2nd gear ring is required to be replaced but complainant refused to do so as is evident from job card dated 14.2.2014 Ex.R10. Then at 64002 Kms. the complainant again raised the said problem but at that time also he refused for replacement of gear ring. The complainant has failed to prove that vehicle is having any manufacturing defect. The problem of gear i.e. normal wear and tear at the running of such Kms. cannot be said manufacturing defect. Such problem in the vehicle can occur due to improper maintenance and mishandling etc. Had there been any manufacturing defect in the vehicle, it could not have run for 70411 Kms. From the job cards it is evident that complainant himself refused to get certain parts like gear ring replaced on paid service as the same were not covered under warranty. The complainant has failed to establish that there was problem in the gear system of the car from very beginning.
7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case narrated above, we find no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:12.01.2017. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
